Re: Numeric 508 datatype

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I am confused by your use of the term "dynamic" range. From what you
> > say above that we are just moving from 1000 to 508 for storage, and that
> > computational range would still be 4096?
>
> No, computational range would still be on the order of 10^16G ... in the
> computational format, the weight is an int. The restriction to 1000
> digits was never anything but an artificial limit. (Of course, you
> might not have the patience to actually do any arithmetic with that many
> digits, but the point is there was a whole lot of headroom before, and
> now there won't be.)

Sorry, I am confused. If our computational range is that high, why does
SELECT factorial(4000) and SELECT factorial(6000) produce the same
number of digits on my screen.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073